Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What the codex says is a guideline, not set in stone. If GW whats to release another webway that is 15 inches tall but blast template footprint guess what it is legal to use, because that is there choice. After all its there game and they are the ones that made up the rules. How can you jutify saying well they didn't say it so you cant use it.

So what if it has 2 chain fists. You only get the ability once. The extra benefit that you get is an extra CC attack. Ok so if I have 2 wolf claws can I have one claw say I am rerolling the to hit, while the other I am going to choose to reroll wounds? NO! That is just a silly idea and shame on you for thinking you could.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:What the codex says is a guideline, not set in stone. If GW whats to release another webway that is 15 inches tall but blast template footprint guess what it is legal to use, because that is there choice. After all its there game and they are the ones that made up the rules. How can you jutify saying well they didn't say it so you cant use it.

So what if it has 2 chain fists. You only get the ability once. The extra benefit that you get is an extra CC attack. Ok so if I have 2 wolf claws can I have one claw say I am rerolling the to hit, while the other I am going to choose to reroll wounds? NO! That is just a silly idea and shame on you for thinking you could.

The point being is that people like you are claiming that because the model came a certain way, despite what the rules for the models says, you are going to create a different way to play it based on how it looks.

And last I checked, there was no FAQ or Errata included with the limited edition WWP package that explained or justified the new dimensions. Barring that you default to the guideline set in the codex which would be a small blast marker or similar.

The codex is just a guideline. So no it doesn't have to be exact.

The LEWWP is a model that GW produced so that gives the guideline of what it might/should look like. After all they created it for that purpose. Now others can build there own to a similar size (hence from the dex).

Why does there need to be a FAQ. Its plan and simple, but the problem is there are rules lawyers (I am guessing such as yourself) that nit pick every little thing that isn't writtin to the letter.

My question is whom of you that think the GW model shouldn't be used goes to tournaments? I am guess 99% of you. Its the tournament people that are bringing this game to where it is and I feel that is the major problem. Its a game first and formost go to the tournament to have fun not to brow beat others down with rules and interpritations of the rules. Have some common sense about it and everyone will have more fun at it. I stopped going to tournaments because of that fact. Every little rule dispute interupted the game and we never got anything accomplished.

Brother Ramses wrote:

This is about as damning a comparison that can be made. One of the above is supported completely by the DE codex, one is not.

Seriously there are a few of you that keep claiming that the model was released by GW, you can now make up new rules for the dimensions of the WWP. I present again that by that argument, Tyberus the Red Wake gets 4d6 AP with his special lightning claws, because despite the rules only giving you 2d6, the OFFICIAL GW model has 2 chainfists.

How is the Limited edition WWP not supported by the Codex? Is it not a WWP?

A chainfist gives you an additional d6 of penetration and since its a special weapon, its effect only applies once. Kind of like having two power swords or a lightning claw and a power sword. You choose one weapon to use in the assault phase and use its benefits. They don't stack, otherwise Vanguard veterans would be running around with lightning claws+powerfists and they'd hit at STR 8 with rerollable To Wound, following your reasoning. Your argument is the same as the guy saying that his Storm Bolter is twin linked becasue the model has 2 S.Bolters modelled that posted here on Dakka a while back.

Lawyered.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:The codex is just a guideline. So no it doesn't have to be exact.

The LEWWP is a model that GW produced so that gives the guideline of what it might/should look like. After all they created it for that purpose. Now others can build there own to a similar size (hence from the dex).

Why does there need to be a FAQ. Its plan and simple, but the problem is there are rules lawyers (I am guessing such as yourself) that nit pick every little thing that isn't writtin to the letter.

My question is whom of you that think the GW model shouldn't be used goes to tournaments? I am guess 99% of you. Its the tournament people that are bringing this game to where it is and I feel that is the major problem. Its a game first and formost go to the tournament to have fun not to brow beat others down with rules and interpritations of the rules. Have some common sense about it and everyone will have more fun at it. I stopped going to tournaments because of that fact. Every little rule dispute interupted the game and we never got anything accomplished.

Interesting that now playing by the rules is now rules lawyering. I guess that since you are just arbitrarily making up new rules for a model that does not conform to the existing rules makes you like a rules fairy or rules genie?

I noticed you ducked the Tyberus point now that it has been explained to you exactly in the same context of you creating rules for the WWP based on the model and not on the rules set by the codex. Despite you insisting on calling it a guideline, it is still a rule set in the codex which the limited edition WWP does not conform to at all in the slightest in regard to the height.

At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

Alkasyn wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

This is about as damning a comparison that can be made. One of the above is supported completely by the DE codex, one is not.

Seriously there are a few of you that keep claiming that the model was released by GW, you can now make up new rules for the dimensions of the WWP. I present again that by that argument, Tyberus the Red Wake gets 4d6 AP with his special lightning claws, because despite the rules only giving you 2d6, the OFFICIAL GW model has 2 chainfists.

How is the Limited edition WWP not supported by the Codex? Is it not a WWP?

A chainfist gives you an additional d6 of penetration and since its a special weapon, its effect only applies once. Kind of like having two power swords or a lightning claw and a power sword. You choose one weapon to use in the assault phase and use its benefits. They don't stack, otherwise Vanguard veterans would be running around with lightning claws+powerfists and they'd hit at STR 8 with rerollable To Wound, following your reasoning. Your argument is the same as the guy saying that his Storm Bolter is twin linked becasue the model has 2 S.Bolters modelled that posted here on Dakka a while back.

Lawyered.

The principal is the same. You are saying that the limited edition WWP blocks LoS based on how it has been modeled, NOT HOW THE RULES SPECIFY IT. I am telling you that based upon YOUR OPINION, I can just as easily say that Tyberus the Red Wake has 4d6 AP based upon how it has been modeled, NOT HOW THE RULES SPECIFY IT.

Reading comprehension FTW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

I already mentioned that there would be no problem using the limited edition WWP marker, as long as you use it to the standard set in the codex. Otherwise you are adding a rule to the model where the the rules do not support said rule by it's own standard.

I think this goes to show that the rules suck for this game. I think they already FAQ'd the answer to this question anyway:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)

A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

Well, I suppose there are not two rules that contradict each other but more like the rules are gray.

Kurce wrote:I think this goes to show that the rules suck for this game. I think they already FAQ'd the answer to this question anyway:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)

A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

Well, I suppose there are not two rules that contradict each other but more like the rules are gray.

I am sure it is going to go each way with various tournament organizers;

1. One person will show the codex with the specific rules.
2. One person will show the limited edition WWP model.

This thread cracks me up. I would think that anything legally on the table (ie. not sodas, cameras, cats....) affects LOS. That was the whole point of true LOS.

Four pages of people desperately trying to convince others that an official GW model/template isn't legal to use in the game and for the army it was created and released for. YMDC has reached an all-time low.

How am I making up new rules..I am just going by what is set for me. Gw produced a model for said wwp so how is that making rules. you are the one making up rules or trying to twist them as you see fit.

You say the rule in the codex is blast template or similar size right. What is similar sized to you? That is what I want to know. I am sorry but to me similar size is the WWP that GW produced. That is a similar size to what they have stated in the dex. To me not a rule but more of a guidline but hey water to wine.

As for the Tyberus point I have allready made a point about that. So I think you need to check out what I said about it..its not hard to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

Forgeworld models are officially made by GW for 40K but plenty of people ban them. So just because it's made by GW for a GW game does not mean that it automatically is usable.

Normally, I would try to break this one down but I think there is nothing to break down here. We have an official model (marker) for the WWP but yet their own model breaks their own rules.

While I honestly feel that using the WWP limited edition model is completely valid and it should provide cover, I do not have any definitive rule or proof that it is valid by the books. Hopefully a FAQ is in the works for this.

Grot orderlies, bomb squigs, ammo runts, grot oilers, eldar weapon platforms, offical GW markers for stunned/shaken/gone to ground/wounds, official GW dice indicating doom/fortune/guidance/mono-filament or any of the above, and any other markers never effect the game in any way. Why should that pretty cereal bowl do so?

The BRB pg.3 defines what a model is, and the special webway portal isn't one. BRB pg. 16 tells us that TLoS cares about "terrain and fighters on the battlefield", no word about markers. So feel free to use a 3 feet pillar as webway portal, it is not blocking LoS.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:How am I making up new rules..I am just going by what is set for me. Gw produced a model for said wwp so how is that making rules. you are the one making up rules or trying to twist them as you see fit.

You say the rule in the codex is blast template or similar size right. What is similar sized to you? That is what I want to know. I am sorry but to me similar size is the WWP that GW produced. That is a similar size to what they have stated in the dex. To me not a rule but more of a guidline but hey water to wine.

As for the Tyberus point I have allready made a point about that. So I think you need to check out what I said about it..its not hard to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

By all means then, point out the page number in the codex that has the limited edition WWP specified as the model that you use. By all means, scan us the rule that came with the limited edition WWP that changes the size standard set in the DE codex to that of the limited edition WWP. Until then you are making up rules.

And you refuted my proposition of 4d6 AP for Tyberus the Red Wake by quoting me the rules for close combat weapons. So how is me refuting the height of the limited edition WWP by quoting the rules in the DE codex for the WWP any different?

Brother Ramses wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

I already mentioned that there would be no problem using the limited edition WWP marker, as long as you use it to the standard set in the codex. Otherwise you are adding a rule to the model where the the rules do not support said rule by it's own standard.

My point was, good luck getting either your opponent or the TO to agree with you. If you are still really worried about it, I suggest contacting the TO before the day of the tourney for a ruling.

Homer

augustus5 wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

A marker produced by GW has exactly the same impact as any other marker: None.

Homer S wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

I already mentioned that there would be no problem using the limited edition WWP marker, as long as you use it to the standard set in the codex. Otherwise you are adding a rule to the model where the the rules do not support said rule by it's own standard.

My point was, good luck getting either your opponent or the TO to agree with you. If you are still really worried about it, I suggest contacting the TO before the day of the tourney for a ruling.

Homer

I can just simply point to the rule in the DE codex, present a small blast maker and then ask the person with the limited edition WWP to show me his rules. Seems pretty straightforward.

Jidmah wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

A marker produced by GW has exactly the same impact as any other marker: None.

Except that the webway portal marker actually represents something on the field, much like another model or piece of terrain. Your whole argument rests on the case that markers have no impact. I think that this marker does have an impact. If GW wanted to product a flat marker to represent the webway portal they could have done so. They didn't, and why we are spending time trying to second guess them is beyond me.

augustus5 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

A marker produced by GW has exactly the same impact as any other marker: None.

Except that the webway portal marker actually represents something on the field, much like another model or piece of terrain. Your whole argument rests on the case that markers have no impact. I think that this marker does have an impact. If GW wanted to product a flat marker to represent the webway portal they could have done so. They didn't, and why we are spending time trying to second guess them is beyond me.

Or as the codex says, the limited edition WWP represents the size of a a webway portal's diamter, but the dome is purely decorative since it is not supported by the codex. It really isn't a hard concept to grasp unless you try to pigeonhole the unsupported height into the codex standard.

augustus5 wrote:Except that the webway portal marker actually represents something on the field, much like another model or piece of terrain. Your whole argument rests on the case that markers have no impact. I think that this marker does have an impact. If GW wanted to product a flat marker to represent the webway portal they could have done so. They didn't, and why we are spending time trying to second guess them is beyond me.

This is wrong, please read the rules I quoted. Any model must be part of a unit, a webway portal can never be part of a unit. It is a marker, the DE codex even says so. Markers are ignored for LoS. Whether you use a blast marker, the half-sphere or a 3-feet pillar has no effect at all. The terrain stays impassible and you can trace LoS through it, as if the marker weren't there.

"I think this marker does have an impact." is not only not a rule, but also in direct contradiction to page 16 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ramses: The height doesn't matter, as models can't be hidden by markers.

Brother Ramses wrote:

By all means then, point out the page number in the codex that has the limited edition WWP specified as the model that you use. By all means, scan us the rule that came with the limited edition WWP that changes the size standard set in the DE codex to that of the limited edition WWP. Until then you are making up rules.

There are none. Yes you are right about there not being a "rule" for the LE WWP. What I am trying to figure out is why it is such a big deal? I don't see how that little model, marker, terrain piece is really that big of a deal to you? If it is because its not in the rules well then that is the deffinition of being a rules lawyer. And I pity you for feeling like that.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
There are none. Yes you are right about there not being a "rule" for the LE WWP. What I am trying to figure out is why it is such a big deal? I don't see how that little model, marker, terrain piece is really that big of a deal to you? If it is because its not in the rules well then that is the deffinition of being a rules lawyer. And I pity you for feeling like that.

I don't think this is a rules lawyer arguement either way. Also let's not start the name calling and personal attacks. If someone is using a marker for a benefit that it was not intended then arguing the merits is valid.

Every time someone doesn't see the same way they are not a "rules lawyer."

And besides, if they are playing WWPs then they are probably losing anyway.

EDIT:

This is wrong, please read the rules I quoted. Any model must be part of a unit, a webway portal can never be part of a unit. It is a marker, the DE codex even says so. Markers are ignored for LoS. Whether you use a blast marker, the half-sphere or a 3-feet pillar has no effect at all. The terrain stays impassible and you can trace LoS through it, as if the marker weren't there.

"I think this marker does have an impact." is not only not a rule, but also in direct contradiction to page 16 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ramses: The height doesn't matter, as models can't be hidden by markers.

Is it a marker or is it terrain? Surely it cannot be both. It says to treat it as impassable terrain.

Me thinks there is too much reading into the word 'marker', but that is just me.

balsak_da_mighty wrote: If it is because its not in the rules well then that is the deffinition of being a rules lawyer.

No, it's not.

A rules lawyer is someone who twists the meaning of the existing rules in an effort to produce an interpretation of those rules that benefits themselves.

Someone simply suggesting that the actual written rules are more valid than rules you just made up is not a rules lawyer. They're just someone trying to play by the written rules of the game.

This is interesting. I think I'll have to take a bunch of servo skulls to make my models obscured by them, since they're counters that take up the third dimension.

Or as the codex says, the limited edition WWP represents the size of a a webway portal's diamter, but the dome is purely decorative since it is not supported by the codex.

I never noticed any passage in my codex referring to the limited edition webway portal.

Re: Marker vs Terrain
The portal can't be physically put into the gaming table without severe repercussions to the table. The blast marker marks where the impassable terrain is without actually destroying the underlying the terrain. So the limited edition webway portal is a marker showing where the impassable terrain exists on the board. It may or may not be an artistic representation of the energies flowing out of the portal. As has been stated so often before markers can not block LoS.